Moral Philosophy Flashcards
What does utility mean and what role does it play in Utilitarianism?
Utility means usefulness. Any object or action has utility (is useful) if it helps achieve a specific goal (or goals). Utilitarianism is concerned with maximising the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people and thus something has utility if it helps to maximise happiness.
Why is utilitarianism correctly identified as consequentialist/teleological, and not deontological?
Utilitarianism states that the moral worth of an action lies in its consequences, not its intent. The ends justify the means and actions only have instrumental value, not intrinsic value. The end goal in each situation is happiness.
Why is utilitarianism correctly identified as act-centred, not agent-centred?
Moral worth lies in the actions a person takes as opposed to their moral character. In order to determine if someone is morally good or bad, you look at their actions and choices.
Explain Bentham’s utility calculus
The utility calculus is an algorithm formulated by Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, a hedonistic utilitarian, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that is produced. The calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act.
To be included in this calculation are several variables, which Bentham called ‘circumstances’:
Intensity: how strong is the pleasure?
Duration: how long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: how likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Remoteness: how soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: the probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind
Purity: the probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind
Extent: how many people will be affected?
Outline Bentham’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism
The moral value of any act is calculated by considering its consequences (which makes it a consequentialist theory). To calculate the moral worth, add up all the pleasure the act brings and subtract all the pain and suffering. Any action is good if it brings about more pleasure than pain.
Outline Mill’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures)
Mill introduced the distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are pleasures of the mind e.g. philosophy and contemplation whereas lower pleasures are pleasures of the body e.g. eating food. Higher pleasures are superior to lower pleasures as they last longer and give more pleasure overall (in the long run). This focus on happiness is qualitative and Mill argued that humans would prefer pleasures of the mind over those of the body even if the pleasure of the body were more pleasurable. Someone who has experienced bothw would value higher pleasures more (competent judge).
Explain Mill’s ‘proof’ of the utility principle
Attempts to prove the utility principle is true (meant to give certainty but it doesn’t)
- Happiness is a good
Things we hear are audible, things we see are visible thus things we desire are desirable. We say we desire pleasure and happiness thus it is a good.
CRITICISM (fallacy of equivocation -using desirable in different ways - moral and non-moral)
CRITICISM (is-ought fallacy) - happiness is the only good
- associate things with happiness e.g. money they are means
CRITICISM (unfalsifiable, Marx, tedious way of thinking) - Everyone’s happiness > individual happiness
individual happiness is good so it logically follows that groups are concerned with group happiness
CRITICISM (fallacy of composition, we arent a hive mind as it doesn’t make sense to be concerned with group happiness)
Explain preference utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism is a non-hedonistic approach as it seeks to maximise something for the greatest amount of people but argues that it does not need to be happiness. Preference utilitarianism suggests action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of all those affected by the action (and its consequences). A good act is one that maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved.
Explain the key differences between hedonistic and preference utilitarianism
Both hedonistic and preference utilitarians are commuted to the utility principle (the right action in any situation is the one that maximises utility) however whilst the hedonistic utilitarian understands utility in terms of pleasure minus pain, the preference utilitarian understands it in terms of preference satisfaction.
Thus when making a moral decision the hedonistic utilitarian has no care for the preferences of affected parties only what will maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
In contrast, the preference utilitarian has no care for happiness, only what will satisfy the greatest amount of preferences of affected parties. For example, if action X was preferred by all affected parties but would not make them as happy as action Y the preference utilitarian would claim that C is the right thing to do, whereas a hedonistic utilitarian would disagree and claim that regardless of preferences Y is the right thing to do.
Explain the key difference between act and rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism both adhere to a hedonistic utility principle (the right action in any situation is the one that maximises happiness for the greatest number of people) however while the former applies the principle directly the latter applies it indirectly. For act utilitarianism, the utility principle is the only ‘rule’ they need to follow, but Mill understood that calculating the utility of action was too complicated and so suggested that rule utilitarianism should follow a set of secondary principles (rules) which would aid in achieving the utility principle.
For example, the rule ‘do not lie’ was prescribed as a secondary principle that would reliably bring about the most amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
What is the difference between strong and weak rule utilitarianism?
Strong rule must always follow the rule but weak rule can break the rule if it leads to more utility
Explain the issue: whether pleasure is the only good (Nozick’s experience machine)
The idea of pleasure as the ultimate end goal is a simple idea however it paints an unpleasant view of the human condition - that of pleasure-seeking animals. Some religious beliefs claim that seeking pleasure is not good but instead wrong, using self-chastisement as a part of this philosophy.
If happiness is all we wanted, we’d be okay connecting to Nozick’s pleasure machine where all we feel is a pleasure and no pain, however, most people would be unwilling to plus themselves in as we want real things to happen i.e. states of affairs in the world.
Response - religious people seek pleasure - in the afterlife and avoid pain
Explain the issue: fairness and individual liberty/rights (including the risk of the ‘tyranny of the majority)
Act utilitarianism can lead to some counter-intuitive moral judgements e.g. slavery. Rule utilitarianism can avoid these off conclusions by arguing that following rules/ideals such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of speech are the best way to maximise happiness. But utilitarians do not recognise that these ideals have intrinsic value. They are merely useful devices that help bring about overall happiness.
Democracy is the will of the majority as there is potential for the majority to oppress others. This oppression could be through direct legislation or through the sheer weight of social opinion-making it difficult for minorities to exercise identities and freedom.
Mill argued that the only reason governments and other individuals should interfere in our lives is to prevent us from causing harm to others.
Explain the issue: problems with calculation (including which beings to include)
Do we aim for average or total happiness? Is it better to have large populations who are less happy (morally wrong to provide free contraception) or smaller populations who may be happier per person but with lower total happiness (providing free contraception)
Is it better to make one person 50 points happier or five people 10 points happier as the total happiness is the same in both cases
How can you determine when a consequence has ended and no ‘final’ moral value can be assigned.
Does animals’ happiness count as Singer argues they are also sentient?
Explain the issue: issues around partiality
Mill = ‘requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator’
Utilitarianism is counter-intuitive as it does not allow us to show partiality for the ones we love. It tells us to be impartial when we don’t want to be which overrides our autonomy. In the burning house example, utilitarianism argues that we must save the scientist as opposed to our son who we would prefer to save.
We would want governments to be impartial although it is important that they help other governments in the process
Explain the issue: whether utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and the intentions of the individual
Bernard Williams argues:
Personal integrity requires there are things (X) that you would not do
Using a utilitarian framework, a scenario can always be created whereby X is the right thing to do
Therefore, utilitarianism undermines our personal integrity
Response = one’s sense of moral/personal integrity is culturally acquired, if we cede to our intuitions or personal integrity, this gives too much weight to a person’s upbringing which in turn can act to maintain the moral status quo, which is not always good
Furthermore Utilitarianism ignores intentions which are counterintuitive
What is the origin of morality according to Hobbes (reason)?
Hobbes suggests that morality originates from rationality. If we were all were in a state of nature with each person seeking out their desires this would result in war. Therefore to avoid this, morals are put in place. Rational self-interest has formed these morals which we live by.
What is the origin of morality according to Kant (reason)?
Kant suggests that morality comes down to reason and whether morally praiseworthy actions can fit within the categorical imperative. These actions can be determined through reason and rationality. Morality should be universalisable.
What is the origin of morality according to Hume (emotions)?
Hume suggests morality is based on emotions and that it is our expression of disapproval that leads to certain actions being deemed morally incorrect. These morals are mind-dependent and hence we develop habitual actions that help others and ourselves.
What is the origin of morality according to Marx (society)?
Marx suggests that morality is based on and originated in society. Society developed its own moral codes that may vary over time but are initially constructed to keep everyone in order to ensure that society is prosperous and successful.
What is the distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism?
The key difference is whether one thinks that moral judgements express beliefs or not. Cognitivism claims ethical language expresses beliefs that can be true or false and aim to describe the world. Non-cognitivism claims ethical language does not express beliefs but some other non-cognitive mental state.
Outline Error Theory (Mackie)
Error theory is an anti-realist meta-ethical theory (which takes the view that there are no moral facts or properties that exist independently of the human mind). Error theory claims that:
Moral statements are propositions (truth-apt)
All such propositions are false
These propositions are made false as mind-independent moral facts/properties do not exist
Error theory is cognitive in the fact that it claims ethical language is meaningful and makes claims about mind-independent reality. It denies the existence of mind-independent moral facts and all ethical language must be false (in error) as there is nothing ‘out there’, no mind-independent reality that moral statements can refer to. Ethics is invented by human communities to maintain and uphold their way of life and thus statements like ‘murder is wrong are false and in error as it mistakenly presupposes the existence of a mind-independent moral property that does not exist.
Outline Emotivism (Ayer)
Emotivism is a meta-ethical theory that claims that:
Moral statements are not propositions (truth-apt) but expressions of emotion that manipulate the feelings of others
Mind-independent moral facts/properties do not exist
Emotivism is committed to a non-cognitivist claim that ethical language is cognitively meaningless and that moral judgements do not express propositions that make claims about mind-independent reality. Ayer argued that as moral statements are neither analytic (true by definition) nor synthetic (capable of being empirically verified) they are meaningless. Developing on Hume’s idea that in ethics ‘reason is the slave of the passions’, Emotivism claims that instead of being propositions, moral judgements are mere expressions of the speaker’s feelings (e.g. to say ‘murder is wrong’ is equivalent to saying ‘murder boo!’) that manipulate the feelings of others. Hence, C.L. Stevenson adds to this by arguing that moral terms have an emotive power that can be used to dynamically influence others to share their feelings. Thus to say ‘murder is wrong’ can be analysed as ‘I disapprove of murder, do so as well.’ This reduction of ethical language to the expression and manipulation of feeling is why emotivism is sometimes referred to as the ‘boo/hurrah’ theory of ethics. It should be noted that 2 commits emotivism to moral antirealism, the ontological belief that mind-independent moral properties do not exist.
Outline Prescriptivism (Hare)
Prescriptivism is a meta-ethical theory that claims that:
Moral statements are not propositions (truth-apt) but imperatives that are universalisable (i.e. whoever makes a moral judgement is committed to the same judgement in any situation where the same relevant facts obtain)
Mind-independent moral facts/properties do not exist
Prescriptivism is non-cognitivist as it claims that ethical language is cognitively meaningless and that moral judgements do not express propositions that make claims about mind-independent reality. Prescriptivism is anti-realist is it supports the ontological claim that mind-independent moral properties do not exist. Prescriptivism claims that moral judgements are akin to commands, imperatives, or prescriptions that recommend action or course of behaviour. These imperatives are also universal; if someone is to make a genuine moral judgement they must be willing to apply their recommendation to all people who find themselves in a relatively similar situation. Thus, like deontology, prescriptivism considers universalizability as essential to the logic of moral judgements.
Explain the issue of whether anti-realism can account for how we use moral language, including moral reasoning
Moral language is used every day as it plays a critical role in our societies and we apply ethics to real-world dilemmas to aid us in decision-making. Anti-realists cannot account for issues such as moral reasoning, guiding, disagreeing and arguing or persuading and influencing action. This is because moral anti-realism provides no guidance on how we must act but instead argues whether morality is a coherent concept. This is not useful and thus provides no benefit to everyday life in comparison to moral realism.
E.g. Emotivism has not guided or commanding power
E.g. Prescriptivism has no basis in disagreeing or agreeing - no reasoning as to which prescriptions should be universalised.
Explain the issue of anti-realism’s problem for accounting for moral progress
We often compare our moral code with the moral codes of our ancestors and we judge the past harshly. For example, what our ancestors viewed as correct - slavery - is something we now as a society view as incorrect. This is because our moral codes have gotten better, our societies have improved and there has been genuine moral progress. However anti-realists reject mind-independent moral properties and as there is no objective standard we can use to assess whether or not our moral code has improved, there has been no moral progress.
